PolityGovernance
News 2 of 33

SC Refers DPDP Act Section 44(3) vs RTI Act Section 8(1)(j) Conflict to Constitution Bench

PolityCORE
Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link
16 Feb 2026
~2 min
Source: The Hindu
Key Data:DPDP Act 2023Section 44(3)Section 8(1)(j) of RTI ActCPIO vs Supreme Court of India 2019
Bodies:Supreme Court of India
Practice MCQs from today's news ▸
What This Article Covers

1.Supreme Court's CJI Surya Kant-led bench referred petitions challenging Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023, to a Constitution Bench, citing a 'complex and sensitive' question of law.

2.Petitioners argue the provision imposes a 'blanket ban' on disclosing personal information under the RTI Act, amending Section 8(1)(j) and removing the public interest test, thus prioritizing privacy over transparency.

3.Examiner's angle: This case tests judicial interpretation of the right to information (RTI Act, 2005) versus the right to privacy (recognized in Puttaswamy judgment, 2017) and the application of the 'proportionality test'.

The Big Picture
Prelims · HighMains · High

The Supreme Court has referred a critical legal question to a Constitution Bench: whether Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, which amends the RTI Act, disproportionately prioritizes privacy over transparency. This case tests the balance between two fundamental rights—privacy and information—and could reshape the scope of RTI in the digital age, a crucial topic for Polity and Governance.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Bench Referring Case3-judge Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant
DPDP Act Year2023
Affected RTI SectionSection 8(1)(j)
Key Legal Precedent CitedCPIO vs Supreme Court of India (2019) 5-judge bench

1-Minute Revision

  • ›Bench Referring Case: 3-judge Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant
  • ›DPDP Act Year: 2023
  • ›Target this Data: DPDP Act, 2023; RTI Act, 2005; CPIO vs Supreme Court of India (2019).
  • ›Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court of India; Public Information Officer (PIO) under RTI Act.
  • ›Target this Legal Point: Conflict between Section 44(3) of DPDP Act and Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act; Articles 14, 19, and 21.

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

Q1Static LinkageEasy

Under which Article of the Constitution was the Right to Privacy recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court?

Q2Statement-basedHard

Consider the following statements regarding the legal dispute mentioned in the news:

1. The Supreme Court has stayed the implementation of Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023.

2. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

3. The petitioners argue that the amendment removes the role of Public Information Officers in balancing privacy and public interest.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMedium

Which Supreme Court judgment, cited in the petitions, had previously applied the 'proportionality test' to balance the right to information with the right to privacy under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act?

Q4Application/ImpactMedium

What is the primary constitutional concern raised by the petitioners against Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, as per the news article?

All 25 MCQs ▸
You finished this topic
Explore Related Topics
Related Current Affairs
Polity Current Affairs

SC 9-Judge Bench Rules BWSSB Triple Test Not Binding for IRC 2020 Section 2(p)

The Supreme Court's 9-judge bench has held that the landmark 1978 'Triple Test' for defining 'industry' under the ID Act will not be a binding precedent for interpreting the identical provision in the new Industrial Relations Code, 2020. This could weaken worker protections just as more workers move to the private sector post-liberalisation.

Polity Current Affairs

TN Withdraws RTI Exemption for Law and Order Dept Under Section 24(4); 2,000+ Citizens Seek CJI Intervention on SIR

Tamil Nadu government withdrew its controversial order exempting the Public (Law and Order) Department from the RTI Act after widespread backlash. Separately, over 2,000 citizens have written to the Chief Justice of India to stay the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and initiate suo motu proceedings against the Election Commission's conduct.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Strength Increased to 38 Judges: Will It Reduce Pendency and Free Up Constitution Benches?

Parliament has passed a bill increasing Supreme Court judge strength from 34 to 38, aimed at enabling regular Constitution Benches and reducing case backlog (92,101 cases pending as of Jan 1, 2026). However, past Law Commission reports question if more judges alone can solve pendency, and the real impact depends on filling vacancies and judicial management.

Polity Current Affairs

SC 7-Judge Bench to Hear Case on Legislative Privileges vs Freedom of Speech under Articles 194, 19(1)(a)

The Supreme Court is set to hear a crucial case on the conflict between legislative privileges of MLAs (Article 194) and the fundamental right to freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)). This stems from a 2003 case and pending privilege proceedings against comedian Kunal Kamra in the Maharashtra Assembly, making it a landmark constitutional issue for democracy and judicial review.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Refers Challenge to 2023 EC Appointment Law to 5-Judge Constitution Bench

The Supreme Court has referred the challenge to the 2023 law on appointment of Election Commissioners to a 5-judge Constitution Bench after a split verdict. The law replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister in the selection committee, raising concerns about executive dominance and independence of the Election Commission. This case is crucial for exam aspirants as it involves constitutional principles of independence of constitutional bodies and separation of powers.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Refers 2023 CEC Appointment Law to CJI for Constitution Bench; Excludes CJI from Selection Panel

The Supreme Court has referred the challenge to the 2023 law on appointment of CEC and ECs to the CJI for consideration of a Constitution Bench. The law replaced the CJI with a Cabinet minister in the selection panel, raising concerns about executive influence. A split verdict between two judges led to the referral.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Seeks Centre Reply on PIL: Minors' Online Accounts Without Valid Contracts Under Section 11 Indian Contract Act

A PIL filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance has challenged the practice of allowing minors to independently sign up for digital platforms without verified parental consent. The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre, highlighting the legal gap between Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act (barring minors from contracts) and existing IT/DPDP rules.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Extends Section 498A (BNS Section 85) Protection to Live-In Partners 'In Nature of Marriage'

The Supreme Court has ruled that women in live-in relationships 'in the nature of marriage' are entitled to protection from domestic cruelty under Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS). This landmark judgment extends criminal law safeguards beyond formal marriage, recognizing that domestic abuse stems from power imbalance, not marital status.

Supreme Court refers to…, Current Affairs for Exams